Forum › Suggestions › Suggestions

Yep. And from what I've encountered so far, and from the lack of noise in the forum, I would say current pits are balanced quite properly.

And yep, that's why I still carry (and most of the times wear) that lvl 25 Agbani boots. I just thought a reminder for future pits design / balance wouldn't hurt ( assuming the person/group responsible for that task read this and still remember it when the time comes).

At this time, when my stooges switch gears, they do so with the gears' equal level counterparts. The stats trade-off is horizontal. I can't say the same when IA switches boots atm (to that lvl 25 Agbani boots) as the stats trade-off is diagonal, aka double the trade-off (horizontal and down).

BTW, the speed booster on a 10 speed base value produces a whooping TWO points increase of speed, thanks to diminished . Hence the need to increase speed from gears to serve the booster a bigger base number to work with.

As for preference, I'd rather sacrifice defense than magic than critical than damage, in that order, for the trade-off. Value wise, I'd like to see at least 15 speed after diminished, just from one gear (boots), with options to buy more if gears variation is made available. Let players decide (test) for themselves just how much mix-and-match they want . Dare I wish 20 speed with just 2 new speedy gears ? Yea ... rite ... . In my dreams LOL.

I have suggestions for a premium item:
boss pack..

For it the buyer can be a boos for a short duration of time snd others can be team to beat him
the pack may constains % buff like boosters and some temporally minions....

Hi everybody! First, congratulation for this amazing browser game (very beautiful and fine visual concepts). I'm testing this game since one week or maybe two..and here are some important suggestions in terms of comfort and gameplay :


1. Currently we can call for help in battle (with button) but we would need to do the opposite: forbid anyone to join the battle.
2. a rectractable mini-map to move easyly (max size 250x250px)
3. Treasure maps classified in ohter section (for exemple: Miscellaneous/Merchandises section of the inventory or with collectables items) cause it's not easy in regular items section..When you buy a dozen cards this takes too much space and it takes time to find the treasures: they take up space for too long.

Thanks for this game !

Originally Posted by Shaey »1. Currently we can call for help in battle (with button) but we would need to do the opposite: forbid anyone to join the battle.

• Menu / Option / Allow others to join me in combat <--- uncheck this

Yeah you can lock your combat...
Intrsting thing lot of other players hate battle lockers so be prepared to be blamed for that....
..but anyway welcome in the Locker team..

I started to lock when i fed up with all of the uninvited last round xp-gamefun stealers... and players who dont greet and dont say thanks about my patience or help...i 'm here to have fun and to relax not for helping others (altrough i do..) or be patient about others laming around...

Please this possibility must remain a choice. A free choice for everyone, a choice who may be temporary or constant or unnecessary.

Nothing prevents players to enable this option for a specific battle or while waiting for specific players. This does not mean he is selfish or evil or that he does not want to help others..

Im a long-time supporter of an eject button for unwanted company in fights. Im 50/50 whether I keep my fights locked (and will never lock on a boss fight) but there are times when an uninvited visitor need to be ejected. I have seen players "crash" groups that were working through an instance or group questline together, leaving one of the party members short of questkills or the final boss. I have seen people join team fights with a pet and then go afk, leaving 2 players waiting in the wings and the other two players die quickly due to lack of an active team. And there are times when I want to just play alone with me and my alts, but someone follows me around waiting for me to unlock my fight to let my alt in so they can join too, and they ignore requests in World, Combat and Private chat to please stop joining.

The ability to lock fights is nice, but there is a definite need for an eject button too!

Among the long line of wish list:

• Eject
• Invite in
• Group start
• Group travel / tethering
• SDB
• Real Economy
• Auction
• Crafting
• Clan
• Clan activity features
• Clan competition
• ... And many, many, more before Nadirim can comfortably and worthy enough to cast a wide ad campaign to truly expand its player base

I had a thought that "invite in" to fights should automatically apply to friends. This has probably been suggested before.

Most RPG games have an "ignore" function where another player's chat isn't visible and they can't PM you, for example - I assume that's on a wish-list somewhere and when it arrives perhaps any ignored players should also be excluded from fights the ignorer started (or controls).

If group travel / tethering means that if the group leader moves so does everyone in that group that's a great idea (especially useful for lugging aroung Alts - shut up Floozy, you were told off for mentioning Alts).

And if groups were catered for, I think a lot of the reasons for people wanting an eject button may disappear (e.g. just form a group before you start a battle and lock anyone else out). In my humble opinion an eject button could be so prone to misuse that alternatives should be sought.

Actually, it's harder to bark at someone who's your friend for crashing your fight (when you intend to solo but forget to lock, for example). Unless of course you want to disassociate with this person . So, invite in feature must remain separate.
___

D'oh... forgot to include Ignore feature in that list. It's the benefit of me turning off chat I guess . On a related note, I forgot to include group chat channel on the list too.
___

Even after forming a group, I still want the eject function available. That should teach uncooperative players to LISTEN to the group leader instead of running around with their own agenda . Since each player gets their own loot, no real reason to kick someone out mid fight.

Originally Posted by Irrational Abstract »Even after forming a group, I still want the eject function available. That should teach uncooperative players to LISTEN to the group leader instead of running around with their own agenda .

Perhaps even better simply give the group leader a button to kick someone out the group (and eject from a battle if there was one in progress)? I think that may have additional benefits as those that used that feature for the wrong reasons would probably find people refusing to join their group - and good leaders become more popular. (If TT could get the game listed as educational that may boost their sales heehee).

Originally Posted by Xiberion »12.22.2011 patch update - update
...Additionally there will be couple of new faces that new players will be able to choose from and several hairstyles.

I wanted to make this suggestion a long time ago, but I just forgot to... so, the suggestion is (if possible) to let the players to change their face or hairstyle.
As you see, at day 1 there weren't as many options as today at the character creation, and I would really like to have one of those faces for my rouge that were added later to the game.

Though i cannot rejoin the battle because of d/c, can i get into the battle to watch the battle to be finished by my teammates without jumping into the field?

What Alaleh meant was "not worth the time and effort to recode the battle engine" . It's not impossible . Only the question of willingness.

Oh, i think there is just a flag which set whether you can join the battle or not. And that flag is judged by a if-else when someone attempt to join the battle.

So, i suggest that the if-else can be put another place where when the player click the buttom of "join combat" in a battle.

This is a suggestion thread, not a Q&A thread. SR understood the current situation the very first time he posted that.

When people see you said "No" on a particular suggestion, they take it as "rejection" of idea. Despite the fact that you're not actually responsible for the development of the game, simply because your a GM, What you say carry some weight. For all we know, you had already talked about this matter previously with the devs, to be able to confidently, flat out, reject it. Hence the usual quip from that SOB jackarse Irrational Abstract , which is a response to a rejection, not to an answer.

SR wouldn't have to expand in detail on his next post had you understood that his was NOT a question, but a request, made in a suggestion thread.

Just FYI, people do occasionally post in the wrong thread. SR's expansion shows it was in fact a question, which in his second post becomes a suggestion.

Au contraire, Eth. His 2nd post / expansion clearly shows the extent of his (programming) knowledge by using the coding terms of "flags", "if-then-else-endif" structure, in response to my "hard to recode" sarcastic comment. Hence, further solidifies that his first post was infact a REQUEST. SR isn't some new forumites either.

Mistakes happens. Humans, etc. You're right about that. But, not on this SR's case.

have it your way.

Thanks all to consider my suggestion/request seriously. Maybe i didnt make myself understood because of my poor English.

I just suggested to make some change in this game. That is i can watch the battle finished by my teammates after i lost connection in battle and back to game again. At present, i cannot rejoin the battle. So i cannot watch the mob killed.

In that case, i suggest the dev letting the players, who lost connection in battle and can't rejoin the battle again, back to the battle without jumping into the battle field, just watching and chatting.

My 2nd post was just my thought. I thought that was not a huge project to change it. I think in the battle, the code should determime how many players are in the battle field already and who is the next in the queue. I think just moving the "rejoin-flag" in these code is not a hard work. I'm not a programmer. I just learnt some C-language in my college. So, what i think is easy may be sooooooo diffcult.

It's not about having my way . It's just plain fact, as you can see yourself with SR's latest post.

Don't worry, SR. I can understand you fine. And, as someone who probably has the worst ISP around, I can relate (I'm sure those who fought with me in the old days can testify just how bad my disconnection problem was ). So many times I wished I can rejoin dc'd fights just to see the outcome.

(At least now my dc problem isn't as bad as a few months back. Those poor ISP customer service reps sure earned their wages absorbing many tongue lashings from me . Although there's still the occasional hickups here and there, I now have stable enough connection. When dc happens. it's definitely not as bad or as frequent. as before.)

As for your last paragraph, I've already mentioned the willingness part of the equation. You're right that the amount of man hour involved behind the scene to achieve this maybe deemed as not worthy to pursue for TT. Or, it's more likely that they just have too many things piled up in their to-do-list. It may still happen, just not soon enough. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.